Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-16
COURT OF APPEALS.

John P White, presiding Judge; j. NJ. Hurt
and Sam A. Wilson, judges; James l.. White,
clerk; w. L. Davidson, assistant attorney
general; NJ. NJ. johnson, bailif
J. M. Wells ct al.vs. Ames Iron Works,
from .CaldwelI opinion by Wilson, j..
This is writ of error prosecuted from a
Judgment by default. What purports to
be citation was issued in said suit for
Wells, but it was not authenticated by
the seal of the court, and service thereof
cannot support the judgment. Z. W. c..
Rep. 5 SOB. But it is claimed that this
defect is CURED by Wells executing re
plevy bond and employing who accepted
service of a certain notice in the cause,
this being quasi appearance. This, I'M
| der our r. S. Art. 1241, is not sufficient,
which provides that no Judgment shall
| be entered against defendant unless
upon service or waiver Of process or ep-
pearance entered in person or by attor-
Fney. The judgment is without authority
| of law and is reversed and the cause re-
manded.
Be. Guthrie VS.. State, from William
son; opinion by Wilson, J. This was q
conviction for placing gate across a
public road. The owner of the land
where the road was gave authority to put
it there, and it was removed when he was
| informed the road was public. The evil
dence fails to show that the obstruction
was wilIful. Because the evidence does
not support the conviction the judgment
| is reversed and the cause remanded.
Thomas Rose ct al, vs.. Elias Riddle,
from Cooke; opinion by Wilson, j.
This was a suit for damages for trespass,
ETC., claiming $500, but praying for
| Judgment for $500. The plea to the
| Jurisdiction was improperly overruled, as
was the motion in arrest Of Judgment.
The plaintiffs demand in the petition Is
considered to be the matter in con-
troversy. 1t appears that appellant
rented certain premises to one John Rid
die for one year. He went away owing
$40 to appellant and assigned his lease
to appellee without giving notice to ap-
pellant, when appellee took possession of
the premises appellant ordered him of
and distrained on some cotton
there, but the distraint was released.
This distraint was one of the
items of damages. Under R. S, Art.
1922, the assignment 10 appellee of the
lease without notice to appellant was not
good, and appellee in going on the prem
ises was mere trespasser, with no rights
in the property. Appellee had no claim
for damages for distraining the cotton
after he recovered it back. There was
no error in the charge as to the liability
OF the defendants as joint wrong doors
The other questions are not material
The Judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded.
O.B. Hewitt VS.. R. J. Selvidge ct al,
from Dallas county; opinion by the court
This was suit for damages for breach
of contract in refusing to take cattle con-
! tracted for. The charge of the court as
to measure of damages was correct wher
viewed with reference to the facts. The
Judgment is affirmed.
John Davis VS.. State, from Hays; opin
ion by Wilson, J. This was theft o.
turkeys, etc., over value of $50. The
testimony for which continuance sought
was not probably true. The evidence
sustains the conviction. The charge was
correct and the charges refused were
done so correctly. The evidence objected
to if not admissible was immaterisl anC
was controlled by the charge of the court
The Judgment Is affirmed.